LAW FOR ALL

Representation of the People Act, 1951-Sections 33 and 36- Nomination paper-Substantial Defect-Meaning of-Name of candidate incorrectly mentioned in the electoral roll-No objection raised at the time of scrutiny of nominations-Held, the mistake was inadvertent or accidental and only technical-No substantial defect-Election Law. Representation of the People Act, 1951-Section 87-Election Petition- Challenge to election of a candidate-Burden of Proof-Held, burden lies on the person who challenges the election-No evidence led by any party to the election petition-Held, election petition would fail- Election Law. Legal Maxims : Falsa demonstratio non nocet cum be corrore constat-Meaning of. The appellant as well as the respondent filed their nomination papers for election to a legislative assembly. In the nomination paper of the respondent, his name was mentioned as "Babu Lal Marandi". In the electoral roll of the constituency from where he was contesting, his name was present but was mentioned as "Babu Marandi" instead of "Babu Lai Marandi" though his father's name and village were correctly mentioned. Against the names of his wife and his son, which appeared immediately after the name of the respondent, the correct name of the respondent, i.e. "Babu Lal Marandi" was mentioned. The respondent filed an application supported with affidavit before the returning officer pointing out the said mistake and seeking correction thereof. At the time of the scrutiny of the nomination paper, the electoral roll of the constituency was seen by the returning officer. No objection was raised by any of the candidates or the appellant at that time. The returning officer entered into a suo moto enquiry for his own satisfaction and being satisfied accepted the nomination paper of the respondent. The respondent was declared elected in the election. The appellant filed an election petition before the High Court challenging the election of the respondent on the ground that in the nomination paper, the name of the respondent was mentioned as "Babu Lal Marandi" which did not appear in any of the electoral roll of any assembly constituency. He further alleged that the respondent has not filed certified copy of the electoral roll of any constituency reflecting his name therein and therefore, the respondent was not competent to contest the election. No evidence was led either by the appellant or by the respondent before the High Court. The High Court rejected the election petition filed by the appellant. Against the said order, the appellant preferred appeal under Section 116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Citation: 2004 AIR 1067,2003(4 )Suppl.SCR1170,2003(8 )SCC613 ,2003(9 )SCALE74 ,2003(8 )JT460 Court Name: Supreme Court=PETITIONER: Harikrishna Lal RESPONDENT: Babu Lal Marandi = 2003 (Oct.Part)judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=19410